Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: inquest
Well, I'm talking about insurance companies themselves. I can see no reason why they wouldn't take on additional customers.

I think what you are talking about is the private companies that offer benefits (via these insurance companies)... I would only assume that "some" of them offer to their plans to homosexuals.... er domestic partners...

I guess the reason the law gets signed is because, without a negative fiscal impact, it would be hard to argue that some employees should get benefits, and others should not... (especially hard to argue here in California).

I googled the bill:

FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis, minor and absorbable costs to the Department of Managed Health Care and Department of Insurance to enforce the provisions of this bill. No state fiscal impact to CalPERS as it currently provides health benefits to domestic partners.

Still, I want to know the fiscal impact on private companies... if there is none, then I really don't care.

52 posted on 09/14/2004 9:15:55 AM PDT by freestyle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]


To: freestyle
Well, I'm talking about insurance companies themselves.

Yeah, so am I. That is the subject of the law.

I can see no reason why they wouldn't take on additional customers.

That doesn't answer my question. I asked you why they would need a law in order to take on additional customers, if it would work out so well for them financially.

54 posted on 09/14/2004 9:25:25 AM PDT by inquest (Judges are given the power to decide cases, not to decide law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson